Bush or Kerry or ???

limerickman

I’m from Ireland.

The category within this thread is called Soapbox : and it is the one area where
subjects other than cycling can be discussed by people who happen to have an interest in cycling.

If my numbers are wrong, as you claim, I am only quoting the statistical information
provided by the US Government for it’s own economy (see Econstats).

The linkage between the Bush/USA policy is, I think, dangerous ground.
In terms of foreign policy, I believe that the Bush government foreign policy in Iraq
is not representative of the American people.
I believe that most Americans see the injustice of that policy and are opposed to it.
Bush has got it wrong - plain and simple.
Bush lied and he continues to lie to the American people and the entire world.
In getting it wrong, he has caused thousands of deaths in Iraq, thousands of dead/injured US soldiers and he has lost “the hearts and minds” of the majority of the Middle East, Europe etc.

The US definition of terrorist - as you point out - is what is at the heart of this entire discussion.
What constitutes a terrorist or terrorist organization ?
Hussein was a friend of the USA in the 1980’s : but in 2003 he was a terrorist.
Gaddafi was a terrorist in 1989 (Lockerbie) : but he is a friend in 2004.
BinLaden was a friend in 1980’s (against USSR in Afghanistan) : but is a terrorist in 1990’s.
So just what constitutes terrorism ?
Why is a friend in one decade regarded as a terrorist in the next decade ?
US expediency perhaps ?
Wolfowitz or Cheney or Rumsfeld or Rice : do we rely on them to define what terrorism is ?
This is the danger facing everyone : the who or the what, that defines terrorism.
This Bush government do not have the monopoly on defining who is right or wrong.

Effectively the terrorists have won the war - freedom of movement has been restricted,
aspects of civil liberties and privacy have been taken away from US citizens.
Terrorists have caused a split in the “West” over Iraq.
Petrol prices have rocketed because Iraq’s supply of oil to the world has dropped by 75% (under Hussein, Iraq produced 4m barrels per day, today it is 1m barrels per day).
Democracy being established in Iraq in the foreseeable future, is non-existant.
So you can use any criteria to measure just how unsuccessful this whole saga has been.

Numbers are the only way in which to quantify the extent of how much Bush has got it wrong.
Don’t get me wrong, Chaim, I have a lot of American friends and relatives.
I have a great admiration for your country.
But Bush has seriously dented US credibility throughout the world.

limerickman

Bush or Kerry ?
Certainly not Bush.
Kerry ? Being totally frank with you, I have my doubts about Kerry.
I am not particularly impressed with his skills as a politician.
He has Bush on the back foot - yet he has been mute on the disasterous US foreign and economic policy’s.
Kerry has had enough ammunition on which to berate the Bush government but hasn’t chosen to do so.
This is a mistake.
I would vote for Kerry as a protest vote ie to get Bush out and because he is a better candidate (this doesn’t make him a good candidate)
Shows the paucity of candidates and their policies (same situation here in Europe).

I was not attacking your intellect.
I was commenting upon you being a mature student.
But if you are bright enough to gain a qualification - it astounds me that you are unable to draw the correct conclusion from both the current political and economic woes befalling your country.
(and by the way, I am younger than your reported age of 41- I think you said in previous posts. I am 38 - so it’s not that long ago when I got my degree and subsequently passed my professional exams).

The economic data that I quoted is two months old - you are correct.
But if you had any knowledge of financial/economic data, you would know that conclusions can only be drawn from an entire database of economic data, and not specific time periods within a given database.
No economist would dare to suggest that a few months figures, constitute a trend.

The economic data that I referred to in past posts, cover 12 month periods (look at my posts at 18.05.2004 at 7.30pm: the statistics I quote cover 2000-2004).
I draw my conclusions from economic trends and data over a four year period -
and while 11th Sept 2001 was a huge economic shock - it was evident that your economy was in trouble during the first nine months of the Bush presidency.
Your data is based on a couple of months - one swallow doesn’t make a summer !

I actually haven’t lost the ability to learn - I am consistently learning.
As regards my geography - Germany and France have populations which are much smaller than the USA : relative population and size. By comparing the USA to either of these countries, is like comparing a continent to a country.
8.8% unemployment rate in EU is comparable to the USA but remember new countries have just joined the EU and these countries are locations where economic activity was restricted because of communism (Poland, Czechs, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Slovakia).

Finally, I have no wish to be an American citizen or to live in your country, I am very happy here in Old Europe, thank you very much !

limerickman

I don't have extensive knowledge of Kerry or what he stands for.
This is my concern - I agree with the view posted by the people who support Bush, ie it is impossible to know what John Kerry
actually stands for.
That being said - I also do not agree that just because I would not vote for Bush (if I was a citizen) that I would automatically vote for Kerry.
In my view it is cynical to vote for someone who you do not want,
just because you don't like the other candidate more !
A persons vote is too precious for that.

The information about the Vietnam vets is very interesting - basically they don't want to vote for one of their own - which is
surprising.

Nader ?
I have no real knowledge about him or his policies.

What I can say ?
Zapper, it is obvious that you are a Republican supporter and I can't criticise you for that.
We all have our political leanings and indeed as you say, we are
fortunate to be able to express those views (sometimes very heatedly !!) openly.
Where we disagree is in respect of George Bush.
I don't have anything against the Republican party - I do feel though that Bush comes from a very polarised viewpoint of that
Republican party.

The next point is controversial - but I think that it is important for a leader to have seen combat.
It is important because those of whom have seen real combat
will do anything - anything - to avoid going to war.
I don't get this impression when I look at Bush - in fact it appears to me that Bush and his people have no real concept of what
is involved - they have never seen mangled bodies in reality.
They have never witnessed open warfare at first hand.
They have never seen, at first hand, just what damage warfare
reeks.

Unfortunately, our country has experienced terrorism for 30 years.
Some of us have seen at first hand, just how destructive terrorism
and bombs are.
The decision to go in to combat should be the very last resort of an person, group or goverment.
It is not a sign of weakness not to strike back.
It is a sign of strength.

Your country is the only superpower left on the planet.
It could crush any enemy - but in doing so, it would also cause the deaths of millions of innocent people.
I think the USA is big enough and strong enough to tackle the problem of terrorism without resorting to what it is now doing in
Iraq.
I fully understand and support your country's invasion of Afghanistan.
The majority of Afghans don't even know where the USA is : a small bunch of bullies allowed a terrorist safe haven.
The Taliban subjected most of those innocent Afghans to a life of misery.
The decision to go in and try to get BinLaden was right and proper.
But Iraq is wrong, in my view.
Those people in Iraq suffered terribly under Hussein.
He slaughtered millions of them.
He allowed his people to starve through UN sanctions.
Those same people now feel oppressed by the USA.
They don't deserve to be treated this way.
Iraq is one of the oldest civilisations in the world : I work with a
Sunni and Shia Iraqi.
They are good, sincere, devout people.
They practice their religion - they both pray five times a day.
They put a catholic like me to shame.
They want to get on with their lives - just like you, me and everyone else.

keydates

The problem I have is that Bush and others seemed very certain on the whereabouts of all these items. Of course, now they are blaming it on bad intelligence (which it might very well be). It really isn't a question on if Saddam had WMD, as you mentioned he used them on the Kurds etc. a while ago. It's did he have them and in the quantity that was suggested in those days and months before the war.

limerickman

I read with interest the post about Kerry’s activities in Vietnam.
It doesn’t cast him in a very favourable light.
I don’t think that trying to regurgitate information from 1966-1970 is indeed
any way to evaluate the suitability of a candidate for president.
This type of re-hashing issues that are not relevant, simply clouds the issue
of who is more suitable to be president of the USA.

Bush’s past life isn’t too great either, is it ?
If you look at Bush’s history - there are plenty of skeletons there.
He’s an alcoholic - he’s a failed businessman - his criminal record has mysteriously
been covered up - he was a complete waster up to the age of 40.
His daddy got him in to the Texas spraycroppers flying division - when he should have
been serving his country in Vietnam.
He lied repeatedly to the people of the USA between 2000-2004.
So, one can dredge up dirt on any candidate in any given election and point and say
“this or that makes this guy a bad candidate”

So let’s move away from who did/didn’t do something in their past life.

The issues for me concerning this presidential race would be :
1.Has Bush been a good president ?
2.Would Kerry make a good president.

Question one for me is clear.
I don’t consider Bush to be a good president for several reasons.
I don’t believe that his foreign policy has made the USA or the world any safer.
In fact I suggest that he has made the world a more dangerous place.
I think that he has mismanaged the US economy - to me it is fundamentally crazy
to deliberately devalue the dollar to try to kick start the economy.
Given that the US dollar has a lot of international currencies pegged to it (like the Yen),
this decision to devalue not only after the USA but countries who currencies are
pegged to the dollar also.
There are other ways in which to generate economic activity - devaluation should only be used as a last resort.

Question two - the answer to this is not so clear.
I don’t know if Kerry would make a good president.
I think he vacillates on issues - he voted to invade Iraq.
He does however get the endorsement of Warren Buffet and George Soros (both economic gurus).
The question for me is, are these two only endorsing Kerry because Bush is so hopeless or does Kerry’s economic plans have some good remedies ?
I suspect that it’s a bit of both.

The real issue for me is the relative weakness of both candidates.
Like it or not, what happens in November 2004, affects the entire world.
Those who claim that Nov.2004 is unimportant in world terms, is living in cuckoo land.
I don’t believe that Bush is the best Republican candidate nor is Kerry the best Democrat
candidate.
They are both poor politicians.
Bush has had four years - and I think that these four years have not been very successful.
His track record is there for people to evaluate.
Kerry ?
We have only his Senate record to measure his performance.

Neither Kerry or Bush are statesmen - never mind politicians.

limerickman

Re : the war in Iraq, on 19th May 2004, British Television had a one hour program produced by the distinguished journalist Jane Corbin.

In the program, Corbin visited the Maryland town where the notorious 372th Command
are located and interviewed parishioners about the torture and humiliation of Iraqi
prisoners in Iraq.
She also conducted extensive interviews with General Janis Karpinski, had footage of
Lynndie England’s interview with US television, she interviewed Charles Grainers
lawyer (Guy Womack) and she interviewed Haydar Saed who was tortured by Grainer and England,
She also disclosed the names of the military personnel involved in the systematic torture of Iraqi’s.
Corbin also detailed the death in custody of an Iraqi - under the Queens Lancashire Regiment.
Baha Moussa was the victims name.
Corbin also interviewed recently released British suspects from Guantanemo.
Corbin also interviewed the Director of Operations of the Red Cross.

The evidence provided in this program is startling.
General Karpinski is now alleging that General Miller of Guantanemo infamy, was brought to Iraq in summer 2003.
To set the chronology, Karpinski states that the US forces were on the brink, in summer 2003.
Hussein was still free at that time - the UN HQ in Baghdad and it’s chief were blown up - Islamic forces and Ba’athist insurgents were (separately) picking off US troops.
General Miller was brought to Baghdad to “extricate valuable information concerning terrorist activity”.
This meant that the prisons were literally filled with people suspected of being insurgents
in a mass round up of approximately 6,000 people.
The Red Cross have confirmed this number, given by Karpinski.

Karpinski alleges that Miller sought and obtained permission from the US gov. to reopen Abu Ghuraib.
This is important - because to Iraqi’s, Abu Ghuraib is where Hussein imprisoned, tortured and executed literally thousands of people.
Abu Ghuraib, to most Iraqi’s, still engenders enormous fear and terror.
To reopen the weapon of choice of the dictator who the US claimed to oppose, was the start of the psychological torture of the Iraqi people.

Karpinski alleges that Miller requested and obtained the use of military intelligence personnel (MI) to staff the prison.
Karpinski alleges that Miller told her that he would take over the running of all prisons in Iraq.
The Pentagon have confirmed that all prisons were put under the command of Millar.(Cofer Black)
Karpinski alleges that Miller and his officers pulled rank and took direct command over her personnel within 372th command.
This would have included England and Grainer.
Karpinski was informed that military intelligence and contractors (mercenaries) would be delegating duties to her soldiers, as required.
Karpinski alleges that the images in the photographs was not the conduct or behaviour of the officers under her command.
Karpinski alleges that England, grainer etc were order by MI to humiliate and torture the prisoners and to photograph these images “so as to humiliate these prisoners, within the
prison, within Baghdad and to humiliate the muslim people”
The photographs were taken because, “in the muslim culture, it is humiliating to have a naked muslim man in the presence of a clothed white woman. Especially an American woman”.
Karpinski alleges that she was told by Miller that MI were to be given “every assistance, help and co-operation in their activities”.
Karpinski alleges that she did not consider England and Grainer to be willing participants in these ritual.

Grainers history though is aprticularly interesting.
Grianer, from Union Town, Pennsylvania employment record shows that he was charged with gross misconduct in his employment there.

Military Intelligence officers were identified on this program as
Srg.Ivan Frederick
John Isreal (Contractor - Mercenary) of Titan Inc.
Stephen Stephanowicz (Contractor-Mercenary) of CACI Inc.
Thomas Pappas - military intelligance 205th
Steve Jordan - military intelligance 205th

Haydar Saed contradicts Karpinski’s analysis : he identified both Grainer and England.
Haydar said that Grainer enjoyed “positioning our bodies, so that we were humiliated as much as possible”
Haydar says “we were manacled together - we were positioned so that my head was at the feet of my fellow prisoner and our bodies were piled up on each other. You have no
idea how humiliating this is to a muslim, to be exposed like this. He (Grainer) took his time to make sure that we were positioned so that our sexual parts were in the face of the prisoner underneath each of us”
Crying, he says “how can they do that to us - I was imprisoned - I was never charged with anything - I was never involved with any attacks
on American troops. The Americans came to my family’s home and they took me away to that prison. I have never been involved in any fighting - I am a Shia, we welcomed the fall of SH, we welcomed liberation but is this liberation ?”
Haydar says “I saw Grainer with a dog - he was using the dog to attack another prisoner.
I will never forget the screams of terror from that man. Grainer was screaming at the poor man. The man knew nothing and he told him (Grainer) so. But Grainer kept screaming “you’re going to tell us fucker”.
Haydar says that he was physically beaten and punched repeatedly.

The Red Cross (RC) confirmed that these tactics were employed in other prisons in Iraq.
RC confirmed that they met with the US gov. in summer 2003 to discuss their information of prisoner abuse in Iraq.
The RC, for reasons of confidentiality, cannot disclose this information publicly but they have confirmed that they put their data in writing to the US gov.
They are still (summer 2004) awaiting a response from the US gov.
Director of Operations : Pierre Krahenbuhl was interviewed by Corbin.

The lawyer for Grainer states that Grainer was only following orders.
He states that his client is going to provide names and details of those who ordered him to carry out this torture.

It appears that the tactics adopted in Iraq - replicate those adopted in Cuba.
A recently released (and uncharged) detainee has said that similar tactics were used in Cuba.
Inmates are confined to cells 8ft by 4ft : with no sensory stimulation : they are often shackled for hours on end, allowing little or not movement within these cells.
If they move while shackled they are beaten by guards.

It is now evident that not only is the Iraq military campaign been a failure - it’s
ability to win the war on terror is now in question.
I refer in particular to the US inability to obtain intelligence.

Since the outset, we’ve heard a breakdown in intelligence, as the excuse for the US getting it wrong.
The Bush gov. blames “a breakdown of intelligence for 9/11” : “a breakdown in intelligence for WMD” : “a breakdown of intelligence in respect of biological and
nuclear weapons” : “a breakdown of intelligence concerning the war in Iraq”.
The US government even claims that “if we had the intelligence that these abuses
(in Abu Ghuraib) were going on, we would have acted to stop this treatment to prisoners
immediately” quote, Rumsfeld before the Senate Arms Committee.

I suspect that no administration could miscalculate some many issues, at so many times, over a three year period.
It is simply inconceivable that they could get it wrong so much.
Either this administration are complete fools (which they are not) or else they are willfully lying through their collective teeth.
Every intelligence agency knows that physical torture does not extract information.
If physical torture worked (at Cuba), we should be witnessing the demise of the terrorist threat from Al Qaeda.
Instead, the threat steadily increases.
Leaders of Al Qaeda are still at large and are still operating.

Intelligence agencies know that terrorist organizations are subtle.
The undefeated IRA and other organizations operate on a cell structure basis.
This ensures that information is compartmentalized within the overall terrorist structure.
The use of physical torture only enforces a suspects will to not concede information.
Andy McNab the former SAS officer has stated “the IRA actually gained recruits because
of the decision by our country to engage in physical and psychological torture - it was their best recruitment policy, the evidence of our treatment of them (IRA).
They didn’t crack under torture - and when released they’d show their beatings to the
mates and they’d join up, to avenge us (the British Army)”
And even when we did manage to extract some useful data, we could not be certain that this information would actually progress our struggle against terrorism in Northern Ireland.
We found that by engaging with them - by using what’s known as human intelligence,
that is, infiltration of the IRA - were we able to get sustainable and truthful data”

What is going on in Iraq with those prisoners has nothing whatsoever to do with General
Millers objective of trying to get intelligence information.
It is simply an attempt by an occupying force to humiliate a nation.
What is going on in Iraq is despicable.
The Bush gov are not interested in the cost of it’s own citizens lives - much less of those who happen to be non-americans in Iraq.